Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00364/B Applicant: Mr William Reubens Proposal: Erection of a dwelling with drive and parking (amendment to PA 15/00841/B) Site Address: Alder Oaks Field 431505 St Marks Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is a field known as Alder Oaks in St Marks. It is a triangular shaped site and is part of a larger site that was subject to a planning application and appeal last year. The site is on the western side of St Marks Road, the A26 between St Marks and Ballasalla.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 It is proposed to erect a single storey dwelling, which would have 5 bedrooms, the smallest two indicated for possible alternative uses as a study and dining room. The design of the proposal is identical to a previously approved dwelling for the site, see planning history below. However, there were errors in the drawings relating to the size of the site that have resulted in difficulties laying out the foundations accurately. It is also understood that the area of land apportioned to the dwelling and its curtilage have been reduced. Consequently the parking area and hardstanding have been realigned. In the previous application the septic tank and tail drains were shown to the north of the proposed house, whereas in this application they are shown to the south. The house would also be positioned closer to the road by about 1.5m.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is a long planning history in relation to the site with two applications for a new dwelling refused (07/01272; 14/00761). However in 2015 an application, 15/00581, was approved on appeal in accordance with an independent inspector's recommendation.

4.0 Development Plan Policies - 4.1 The site is not allocated for development and therefore the relevant Strategic Plan policies are Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. These seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Malew Commissioners: No objection (07.04.16).

5.2 Highway Services: awaiting further information: the applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions. The agent has been contacted (07.04.16). - 5.3 DEFA Forestry: the constraints imposed by the trees have not been properly considered - would have expected to see an assessment of each tree's BS5837 category rating. Officer assessment is that with a few exceptions which just scrape in to category B (moderate quality trees worthy of being a material constraint) most trees are category C (low quality trees not worthy of being a material constraint) - trees worthy of retention and trees that could be removed. With the exception of the trees on the hedge (T4, T7, T9, T10), all the trees to be retained should be protected from construction activity. A construction exclusion zone (CEZ) could be implemented. Within CEZs the original ground levels should be restored (where work has already begun) and all future construction activity be excluded. This includes, but is not limited to, the parking of vehicles and storage of plant, machinery, equipment and materials. Where excavation within CEZs is unavoidable guidance can be given for working practices

To mitigate for the loss of trees on the site (and the general visual impact of the development) the applicant could establish a hedge on top of the existing sod bank. Given the countryside location, a mixed hawthorn/blackthorn hedge would fit nicely with the local character.

Drainage/water logging is not seen to be an issue for trees on this site (11.05.16).

5.4 Mr Gawne MHK: objects to application as previous support for this had been conditional on there being no objections from neighbours. It now appears that the applicant is changing his plan such that it will now cause harm to land belonging to his neighbours and result in flooding in the highway too. The previous plan avoided this harm and should be adhered to. Concern that the reason for the change in plan is so that another house could be built where there is approval for drains and soakaways. Would object to any further residential development on the site (05.05.16). - 5.5 Owners/Occupiers of Ballacubbon Farm: Object. Farm fields lie directly adjacent to the application site. The field is heavy soiled, not free draining and has standing water during wet periods. Water has lay in the existing footings in heavy clay for several weeks. There is reduced area for parking on these plans which may result in cars being parked on the highway. As a result of the relocation of the bungalow and the parking area, there is less ground surface area for water to disperse. The tail drains are shown in a different position to the previous application, now they are to the south and not the north. The family will create a lot of waste water. The plans show any water that does not percolate will go onto the highway verge via an existing permeable field drain. This water will eventually run into our adjoining wet field. The permeable field drain and the tail drains are less than 10 metres apart which is against guide-lines. There are 6 large mature trees which will have to be removed as their roots will interfere with the drains. There are rushes growing around the base of these trees, not a sign of free draining soil. The application does not comply with policy and will result in material harm (29.04.16). - 5.6 Owner/occupants of Ballagarey Farm Cottage: the drainage on this plan will not work due to the nature of the soil. Water is still lying in footings that have been dug for three weeks now. Seven people will create a lot of waste water. There is not enough room to put the tail drains where they are shown as the roots of the trees will be in the way and even if there was enough room the roots will eventually crack the drains. Are they going to cut down even more trees. Did not comment on the previous application as the tail drains are in the middle of the Reubens' own field where it will be their problem not ours (02.05.16).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 There is no doubt that the proposal to erect a dwelling at this location is contrary to the Island's Strategic Plan. However, the previous determination to approve an identical dwelling at this

• location in a slightly different position, is an overwhelming material consideration. Irrespective of any individual thoughts about the conclusions of the inspector in relation to the previous planning application, or the Minister's acceptance of it, the principle of erecting a dwelling in this location has been firmly established. The consideration before members now, is whether the current proposal differs such that an alternative decision could be reached.
• 6.2 The repositioning of the house, by itself does not raise any significant factors. It does however mean that the parking area is relocated, the house would be sited nearer to some trees, and the position of the septic tank and tail drains are also in a different location.
• 6.3 In terms of parking, the plan shows space for at least three cars. Consequently it meets the provisions of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.4 The DEFA Forestry officer has considered the application and notes that most of the trees on site are of a low quality, but there are exceptions where trees of are of good quality and should be kept. He recommends conditions in respect of the development works. Having visited the site, the trees in place are attractive and add to the visual amenities of the area, however the loss of any would not be considered to be a determining factor. Conditions seeking the retention of trees where possible plus a landscaping condition would help mitigate the impact of the development in the area.
• 6.5 In terms of drainage, provided the planning authority is satisfied that the necessary surface water and waste water drainage is capable of being implemented on a site, the technical means of doing this is a building control matter. A percolation test was carried out at the time of the previous building control application and was found to be satisfactory. However a further percolation test is to be undertaken as the drainage is shown to be in a different location. If the soil has insufficient capacity to accept the discharge of the foul water then an alternative approach would need to be proposed. There are a number of different ways that this can be dealt with.
• 6.6 Suggestion has been made that water will drain onto the highway, however the road is higher than the site and consequently this will not be the case.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 For the above reasons the application is recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS - 8.1. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• (d) The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

• 8.2. In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
• 8.3 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person.

Owner/Occupiers of Ballacubbon Farm; The owner/occupiers of Ballagarey Farm Cottage.

8.4 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person. Mr Phil Gawne MHK - 8.5 As DEFA Forestry Division is within the same Department as is the Planning Authority, the Forestry Division cannot be afforded interested person status.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 17.05.2016 _________________________________________________________________________________

9.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT POST PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING - 9.1 At the meeting held on the 23rd May 2016, the Planning Committee overturned the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the reasons given below.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 23.05.2016

• R1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development lies outside of areas that are zoned for development in the recently adopted Area Plan for the South and as such is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations.
• R2. Due to the re-positioning of the dwelling and the proposed parking area it is considered the proposal would adversely affect the visual amenities of the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R3. It is considered the re-positioning of the drainage layout as proposed would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding off-site to the neighbouring field contrary to Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Signed :J Chance Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See supplementary report at paragraph 9.0

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.